It may seem like a right of passage for Woodlanders to complain about deteriorating roadways, but some new data suggests there may be more than potholes to whine about.

A Tuesday meeting at Woodland City Hall brought to light some of the city’s most hazardous roadways and intersections; based on the numbers, much could be improved to keep drivers, cyclists and pedestrians safe.

“A car versus a pedestrian isn’t a fair fight,” said Adrian Engel, a transportation planner based in Sacramento.

Engel presented data charts and maps for the small but packed chamber, giving Woodlanders a new look at their city — one that focused on traffic accidents.

Gathering this type of information from both official and public sources allows the City of Woodland to pursue larger grants from state and federal sources. By proving the danger of some corridors, more funding can be secured for redesigns and new roads. Tuesday’s meeting was part of that public outreach.

By tracking Woodland accidents between the years of 2009 and 2016, the city has a by-the-numbers look at hazardous intersections.

In that time frame, Woodland had 3,564 traffic collisions:

• 3,294 resulted only in property damage;

• 205 saw non-severe injuries;

• 52 caused severe injuries; and

• 13 resulted in fatalities.

Those numbers break down into subsections of bicycle collisions and pedestrian collisions.

Engel said nine of the total 13 fatalities were pedestrians hit by vehicles. All others were vehicle-to-vehicle collisions.

According to the mapped data, Woodland sees most of its collisions on Main Street, especially as it intersects with Pioneer Avenue, Matmor Road and East Street.

As a general trend, Woodland reported an above-average amount of youth bike and pedestrian collisions near schools.

Engel’s report mentioned that the number presented relied on police reports; if a collision — perhaps just a little nudge — isn’t reported, there’s no collection of that data.

“So what are we missing?” Engel asked the crowd. “You tell us.”

Those who attended the meeting received a feedback paper with a map of on the back. While viewing statistics, locals marked on the map what they perceived to be traffic hazards. On they other side, they listed the street location and the type of hazard.

Others took a seat at one of two laptops in the chamber to “drop a pin” on an online map. Different pins corresponded to different hazards.